Kommentare Seite 2 / 2

All changes to the player's weight?..
there are a lot of things you can change that you probably know and indifferently like how to create the game with random players who will want to play at that time rather than a "set up" game...
and many more as one that makes the game over and over again unjust such as taking each player's points that match him that has won with his value and not losing them if he missed the fight or betrayed as is often the case and we have end up being afraid of how many traitors we play and stuffed with lists to know who we can and who we are not to play .... (many people are gone for these reasons ..)

It would have been nice to consult the scenario community before radically altering LB for the entirety of the game.

The massive upkeep increase basicly makes the strategy very unattractive, if anything, the crit should have been reduced by 2. Would have much rather seen a buff to RA and other weak strategies than axing a popular strategy.

When i first started playing this game, i thought the strats countered eachother... like LB is best to played vs XX.
Wouldnt that be nice to have strategies not by hierarchically ranked but all at the same level and have a counter to each other.

I can't speak to the LB nerfs considering that I rarely used LB before (I despise LB for its crit mechanics) but the overall concept does seem frustrating as it leads to encouraging only a few strats to be viable in most environments.

Imp (and sometimes PD) are often the only viable strats on most scenario maps and ive seen LB become more niche in countering those strats in some maps, but I fear that then this will restrict the scenario community to only being able to use imp due to the lack of money in a lot of these scenarios (in particular works by Aetius and Pyrrhus as well as others).

Making a strategy unpopular that has been spammed everywhere is fine. People can get around to learning different ones now.
Besides critical hits are cancerous in a game where luck dependent mechanism like rolls and turnblocks are already determining the outcome of some games.

As usual the majority of the community has their voice unheard.
LB now generally unplayable in most scenarios thanks to this update. Why continually nerf strats until we are left with a bland set of strategies to pick from that no one likes.

There is A lot of the strats u can use in rp.

Those changes are legit due to this equation :

LB is killing competitive cause everyone using it all the time > change the strat will only have a small impact on rp

Lol RP? classic ignorance of retard competitive branding maps that dont use default as 'rp'. Ignorance is not bliss.

That suck now on scenario i can't anymore play lb,
why u doing that change with only taking care about classic world map or classic 3v3 …
majority of commu Don't play 3v3, eu, or cw take care about that ! not about the few players playing only 3v3 and cw

As usual the majority of the community has their voice unheard.
LB now generally unplayable in most scenarios thanks to this update. Why continually nerf strats until we are left with a bland set of strategies to pick from that no one likes.

There is A lot of the strats u can use in rp.

Those changes are legit due to this equation :

LB is killing competitive cause everyone using it all the time > change the strat will only have a small impact on rp

Then you should adapt and stop trying to make the majority adapt so a small group of people can play their dead map togheter

Dave can you look into Relentless Attack strategy, i made a topic about it not long ago. It was called Tank General before and it buffed main attack units, now it is just closer to Blitzkrieg than offensive strategy. It would be nice to have simple offensive strategy for scenarios (cavalry, chariots, artillery, tanks, anything)

----Do not fear the enemy, for they can take only your life. Fear the media far more, for they will destroy your honor.

That suck now on scenario i can't anymore play lb,
why u doing that change with only taking care about classic world map or classic 3v3 …
majority of commu Don't play 3v3, eu, or cw take care about that ! not about the few players playing only 3v3 and cw

As usual the majority of the community has their voice unheard.
LB now generally unplayable in most scenarios thanks to this update. Why continually nerf strats until we are left with a bland set of strategies to pick from that no one likes.

There is A lot of the strats u can use in rp.

Those changes are legit due to this equation :

LB is killing competitive cause everyone using it all the time > change the strat will only have a small impact on rp

Then you should adapt and stop trying to make the majority adapt so a small group of people can play their dead map togheter

I love how you refer to your opinion as the "majority", when in fact these strat changes ARE what the majority asked me for.

Anyway you've made your point, time to move on.

----

All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer,
but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
--Sun Tzu

That suck now on scenario i can't anymore play lb,
why u doing that change with only taking care about classic world map or classic 3v3 …
majority of commu Don't play 3v3, eu, or cw take care about that ! not about the few players playing only 3v3 and cw

As usual the majority of the community has their voice unheard.
LB now generally unplayable in most scenarios thanks to this update. Why continually nerf strats until we are left with a bland set of strategies to pick from that no one likes.

There is A lot of the strats u can use in rp.

Those changes are legit due to this equation :

LB is killing competitive cause everyone using it all the time > change the strat will only have a small impact on rp

Then you should adapt and stop trying to make the majority adapt so a small group of people can play their dead map togheter

I love how you refer to your opinion as the "majority", when in fact these strat changes ARE what the majority asked me for.

Anyway you've made your point, time to move on.

Lets make an aw census then?
Edit:Inform yourself on your games demographics first most of the people that talked in that thread didnt play the game for months just because the scenario community doesnt use the forums doesnt mean we dont exist

It would have been nice to consult the scenario community before radically altering LB for the entirety of the game.

These changes were being discussed in the forums going back almost a year, before I was even here. So in all honesty you can't say you weren't "consulted", when you had plenty of opportunity to make your case in the forums.

----

All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer,
but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
--Sun Tzu

It would have been nice to consult the scenario community before radically altering LB for the entirety of the game.

These changes were being discussed in the forums going back almost a year, before I was even here. So in all honesty you can't say you weren't "consulted", when you had plenty of opportunity to make your case in the forums.

Well for starters, many people who play the game don't actively visit the forums. The people who frequent forums are almost a demography of their own.

The problem is the fact that many strategies are just worthless and the few strategies that are viable for most maps should not be reduced upon. I think that getting rid of the extra upkeep for militia for LB could be enough to make the strategy viable. Although I will have to do more testing to see if that is sufficient.

Furthermore I'd like to bring up the idea of having mapmakers create custom strategies for their maps, this way there is even more variety in strategies without risking harm the competitive scene meta.

How come Dave joined 4nic's clan and took it over? Also I think the award for biggest noob on AtWar goes to...
khm khm khm
tada tada tadu

(look who lost the duel!)

Congratulations Sultan!

don't be silly, he lost that on purpose, you know, for reasons... ulizica

----
"If our Army isn't ready to continue the war the same way. We can and will continue the war via guerila, diversionary or terrorist way. It will be more deadly for our people, but also for them!" - Dr. Nijaz Duraković

It would have been nice to consult the scenario community before radically altering LB for the entirety of the game.

The massive upkeep increase basicly makes the strategy very unattractive, if anything, the crit should have been reduced by 2. Would have much rather seen a buff to RA and other weak strategies than axing a popular strategy.

Get real i've played a SHIT TON of scenarios and in almost all of them, imperialist is the best strat BAR NONE. It just happen that Lb was so broken that sometimes it was better than imp.

That suck now on scenario i can't anymore play lb,
why u doing that change with only taking care about classic world map or classic 3v3 …
majority of commu Don't play 3v3, eu, or cw take care about that ! not about the few players playing only 3v3 and cw

As usual the majority of the community has their voice unheard.
LB now generally unplayable in most scenarios thanks to this update. Why continually nerf strats until we are left with a bland set of strategies to pick from that no one likes.

There is A lot of the strats u can use in rp.

Those changes are legit due to this equation :

LB is killing competitive cause everyone using it all the time > change the strat will only have a small impact on rp

1.- whitout lb the only strats left for competitive are pd and imp. If gc gw sm nc and blitz are low use and are only usefull for ukrania or to do specific moves(like nc uk) you will never compare the times people play pd or imp whit the other strats.
2.- rp no longer exist in atwar, it is rarely played now, you just cant name any other map except boring default europe "rp". This hurt hard the scenario community(i am part of it) and i can say lb is not over used(imp is) but is a very good option to try if you boring of imp or want to do specific moves, now it is useless for almost everything, other maps like ancient world or default world use lb a lot too, but at least they have many good strats to pick, other ramdom maps that are up sometimes (like shogunate, rome politicial, colonial age, world in xxxx) use lb too.
3.- And this is to the lb nerf, i am disagreed whit the +10 for militia, the upkeep will be very high for this and the mil is not used at all majority of games, it is already annoying to have militia in many places doing nathing but costing you money, i doubt somebody will spam lb militia as a meta so this just ruin strat to much in my opinion.
4.- Now that lb is ruined, you can bring back some strats to a usefull way, strats like hw (totally useless and never played except for trolling) ra and blitz(mainly used for noobs/low ranks/new players and blitz for very specific moves but still useless) mos (this is a good strat but low used, i think because it is an expensive strat so people dont find it good for competitive or low starting funds maps, maybe a small buff can
introduce this strat:D)

Everything you said in point #1 is so wrong i'm not even gonna bother debunking it.

It would have been nice to consult the scenario community before radically altering LB for the entirety of the game.

These changes were being discussed in the forums going back almost a year, before I was even here. So in all honesty you can't say you weren't "consulted", when you had plenty of opportunity to make your case in the forums.

I am greatly disturbed in infantry reduction of movements at PD as PD user

Although I am curious, what majority asked for the militia nerf on lb to be restored. Sultan asked for it on page 1 of my thread and I explained why it was a bad idea. Nobody refuted what I said and I didnt include it in my post so why was it added?

Also where did the ds heli marine capacity nerf idea come from? I can't find any origin for that 1. The majority i saw clearly wanted a defence nerf.

----
Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD. Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart. They do nothing wrong; they walk in his ways.

In all honesty, I have a feeling its like always talking to a wall when it comes down to talking to the scenario community about stuff like this.

How do you expect to balance a strategy based on maps/scenarios? Every goddamn scenario/map is different, from pre-set countries with shitton of income to poor as fuck regions. It still remains a fact that Europe is still the most balanced map of this game and strategies should be balanced based on this map.

And saying you are the majority and that most of your people don't look at forums isn't really an argument lol. We get that you guys want to be recognized as the other community and have a say in stuff like this, but how do you see that happen? People who barely have played any strategies besides PD or IMP, telling what strategies should be dealt with? It sounds delusional.

It is never good to lean only to one side, for any reasons. Balance is the key. Compromise. Try to balance between two sides.

Then they need to speak up.

I agree with Dave completely. If you make no objections your silence can be taken as a agreement. Although a suggestion I have for further strategy updates, would be a poll created by Dave that would appeal to the community at a whole.

I think the general consensuses between the community that updates would be limited, but as Dave has stepped up and became our Dev this will change.

Greetings & Salutations,
Since i have not been on for the last year until last month, December, I never knew there was a discussion to modify the Strats, that is until today. So where is the best place to state my objections? I don't really care to drag this particular thread on any longer than necessary. New thread?
Respectfully,
WM Dak

It would have been nice to consult the scenario community before radically altering LB for the entirety of the game.

These changes were being discussed in the forums going back almost a year, before I was even here. So in all honesty you can't say you weren't "consulted", when you had plenty of opportunity to make your case in the forums.

To resolve the concept of people complaining about appeasing the majority and who that majority is, may i suggest that the mods, admins and supporters make the suggestions for strat changes and put them forward in a well advertised poll?

That way we know for a fact what the active community wants. And if you dont vote... you cant conplain.

In all honesty, I have a feeling its like always talking to a wall when it comes down to talking to the scenario community about stuff like this.

How do you expect to balance a strategy based on maps/scenarios? Every goddamn scenario/map is different, from pre-set countries with shitton of income to poor as fuck regions. It still remains a fact that Europe is still the most balanced map of this game and strategies should be balanced based on this map.

And saying you are the majority and that most of your people don't look at forums isn't really an argument lol. We get that you guys want to be recognized as the other community and have a say in stuff like this, but how do you see that happen? People who barely have played any strategies besides PD or IMP, telling what strategies should be dealt with? It sounds delusional.

i like how none of those noobs even tried aruging with you, this is so true.

----
''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies''
~Napoleon

So whoever is louder and more obnoxious causes the change here xD same as real life, 95% of people own 5% of world asset while 5% own 95%... makes sense xD not complaining just pointing out the obvious.

Although I am curious, what majority asked for the militia nerf on lb to be restored. Sultan asked for it on page 1 of my thread and I explained why it was a bad idea. Nobody refuted what I said and I didnt include it in my post so why was it added?

Also where did the ds heli marine capacity nerf idea come from? I can't find any origin for that 1. The majority i saw clearly wanted a defence nerf.

Agreed on both counts. For my part, the Inf nerf is as it should be, but the +10 Militia cost is brutal because they automatically appear when you conquer a city. Having stack after stack of 4 maintenance cost each instead of 3, over which you have no control over those units appearing...

Although I am curious, what majority asked for the militia nerf on lb to be restored. Sultan asked for it on page 1 of my thread and I explained why it was a bad idea. Nobody refuted what I said and I didnt include it in my post so why was it added?

Also where did the ds heli marine capacity nerf idea come from? I can't find any origin for that 1. The majority i saw clearly wanted a defence nerf.

Sultan is a terrible player and mod, but still apparently has a lot of influence, I really don't get why.

So whoever is louder and more obnoxious causes the change here xD same as real life, 95% of people own 5% of world asset while 5% own 95%... makes sense xD not complaining just pointing out the obvious.

Not everyone is a critical thinker, a vast majority of people are content with a simplistic life style. Yet the internet has brought on this notion that some how the majority is some how always correct.